0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

This additional potential energy increases the frequency of the clocks energy transitions.

...and what is the opposing force that stops the atomic structure from collapsing?'

Given that all energy relationships will increase proportionally?

Aside from the necessity for a redefinition of G...As to a redefinition of G or g, you made a very interesting post that I've reposted twice now concerning sigma wave. I can put this in context again if you like, but you turned your nose up last time.

Quote from: timey on 19/08/2016 22:03:25...and what is the opposing force that stops the atomic structure from collapsing?' quantum mechanicsQuoteGiven that all energy relationships will increase proportionally? bollocks (see "quantum mechanics" above)

Quote from: timeyAside from the necessity for a redefinition of G...As to a redefinition of G or g, you made a very interesting post that I've reposted twice now concerning sigma wave. I can put this in context again if you like, but you turned your nose up last time.Here G is not the gravitational constant. It is a function with a set of parameters. I am awaiting your instructions on how to define the expression that the function will use.

I'm sure you will find the Poppycock and Bollocks paper somewhere on arxiv.

If the energy that holds the structure together is increased by gravity potential energy, the energy that prevents the atom from collapsing will also be increased proportionally.

QuoteIf the energy that holds the structure together is increased by gravity potential energy, the energy that prevents the atom from collapsing will also be increased proportionally.Part of your problem is that the atom has no idea of its gravitational potential since that is only defined with respect to an arbitrary body of which it has no knowledge. A hydrogen atom on the moon has gravitational potential x joules with respect to the surface of the earth, y with respect to the sun, z with respect to Mars, and -a with respect to a point in free space at infinity. How does it know what energy corresponds to its own hyperfine 1s split (the "21 cm line")? The only rational answer is that the emitted photon energy is constant everywhere and the gravitational frequency shift is dependent on the relative position of the observer. For what it's worth, you can also untangle photons and clocks by considering "hydrogen 1s". The photon frequency is about 1.4 GHz, so can be used both as a detectable radio wave (astronomers love it) and as the timebase for a practical clock.

The proposal, first made in 1913, that the centrifugal force of the revolving electron just exactly balances the attractive force of the nucleus (in analogy with the centrifugal force of the moon in its orbit exactly counteracting the pull of the Earth's gravity) is a nice picture, but is simply untenable.

You don't need to talk to a mathematician. You need to listen to a physicist. Or try reading your references. You will find the word "gravity" remarkably absent beyondQuoteThe proposal, first made in 1913, that the centrifugal force of the revolving electron just exactly balances the attractive force of the nucleus (in analogy with the centrifugal force of the moon in its orbit exactly counteracting the pull of the Earth's gravity) is a nice picture, but is simply untenable. ....now read on....

Quote from: alancalverd on 20/08/2016 12:52:56You don't need to talk to a mathematician. You need to listen to a physicist. Or try reading your references. You will find the word "gravity" remarkably absent beyondQuoteThe proposal, first made in 1913, that the centrifugal force of the revolving electron just exactly balances the attractive force of the nucleus (in analogy with the centrifugal force of the moon in its orbit exactly counteracting the pull of the Earth's gravity) is a nice picture, but is simply untenable. ....now read on....

Quote from: alancalverd on 20/08/2016 12:54:07iQuote from: alancalverd on 20/08/2016 12:52:56You don't need to talk to a mathematician. You need to listen to a physicist. Or try reading your references. You will find the word "gravity" remarkably absent beyondQuoteThe proposal, first made in 1913, that the centrifugal force of the revolving electron just exactly balances the attractive force of the nucleus (in analogy with the centrifugal force of the moon in its orbit exactly counteracting the pull of the Earth's gravity) is a nice picture, but is simply untenable. ....now read on....Why is it that you think that in changing the 'why' of a particles reaction to energy, this reverts the physics to a previously held concept?Despite the fact that a nucleus and it's surrounding electrons do not resemble the moon in gravitational orbit to the earth, the process of how the electrons do interact with the nucleus has gravity potential energy and kinetic energy written all over it.

iQuote from: alancalverd on 20/08/2016 12:52:56You don't need to talk to a mathematician. You need to listen to a physicist. Or try reading your references. You will find the word "gravity" remarkably absent beyondQuoteThe proposal, first made in 1913, that the centrifugal force of the revolving electron just exactly balances the attractive force of the nucleus (in analogy with the centrifugal force of the moon in its orbit exactly counteracting the pull of the Earth's gravity) is a nice picture, but is simply untenable. ....now read on....

Furthermore, you said the energy level has nothing to do with the mass of the electron, but as the link states, the energy level affects the mass of the electron as per current mathematics.

Simply changing this concept of an increase in mass to being an increase in the rate of time, (observed by experiment via the greater frequency of energy transitions), in relation to an inverted gravitational time dilation of the open space of the atom, affords same observation for altered reason.

This altered reason results in a fully described cyclic universe that finds its beginnings and ends of cycle in the black hole phenomenon, and needs no unobserved phenomenon to dimensionally balance its mechanics. The model can explain all observation and gives explanation for previously unknown quantities and unexplained observations.I'm all for having a laugh and a bit of fun but I don't really enjoy having 8+ years of serious thought process and related study dismissed out of hand by words like bollocks and poppycock, when sometimes it would seem that you haven't even read the post you are commenting on.

Quote from: timey on 20/08/2016 14:44:45Quote from: alancalverd on 20/08/2016 12:54:07iQuote from: alancalverd on 20/08/2016 12:52:56You don't need to talk to a mathematician. You need to listen to a physicist. Or try reading your references. You will find the word "gravity" remarkably absent beyondQuoteThe proposal, first made in 1913, that the centrifugal force of the revolving electron just exactly balances the attractive force of the nucleus (in analogy with the centrifugal force of the moon in its orbit exactly counteracting the pull of the Earth's gravity) is a nice picture, but is simply untenable. ....now read on....Why is it that you think that in changing the 'why' of a particles reaction to energy, this reverts the physics to a previously held concept?Despite the fact that a nucleus and it's surrounding electrons do not resemble the moon in gravitational orbit to the earth, the process of how the electrons do interact with the nucleus has gravity potential energy and kinetic energy written all over it.Somewhere in all those books you must have read of probability densities.Gravitation is so weak in nuclear interactions that it may as well be absent. It takes a very large mass for gravitation to have any appreciable effect.QuoteFurthermore, you said the energy level has nothing to do with the mass of the electron, but as the link states, the energy level affects the mass of the electron as per current mathematics.I'm not even sure what you are referring to here.QuoteSimply changing this concept of an increase in mass to being an increase in the rate of time, (observed by experiment via the greater frequency of energy transitions), in relation to an inverted gravitational time dilation of the open space of the atom, affords same observation for altered reason.It's called spacetime not masstime. QuoteThis altered reason results in a fully described cyclic universe that finds its beginnings and ends of cycle in the black hole phenomenon, and needs no unobserved phenomenon to dimensionally balance its mechanics. The model can explain all observation and gives explanation for previously unknown quantities and unexplained observations.I'm all for having a laugh and a bit of fun but I don't really enjoy having 8+ years of serious thought process and related study dismissed out of hand by words like bollocks and poppycock, when sometimes it would seem that you haven't even read the post you are commenting on.If you really believe the universe is cyclic then learn how physics describes the current situation before attempting to change it. I am afraid it is not possible to understand the required physics without understanding the mathematics. That is just the way it is. That is why you are looking for a mathematician to help you. If all the physicists(mathematicians) are telling you that you are wrong then you need to understand why.

In the theory of relativity, time dilation is a difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from a gravitational mass or masses.

So let's have another go at understanding your hypothesis. Conventional general relativity says that QuoteIn the theory of relativity, time dilation is a difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from a gravitational mass or masses.and in he case of gravitational dilation, the effect is not reciprocal.Now in inverse time dilation theory .....(please complete the sentence, with regard to the structure and content of the examples given.)

...(chuckle), that is funny - but:

Quote from: timey on 20/08/2016 22:37:18...(chuckle), that is funny - but:When we consider the "buts",... I just couldn't help "but" remember a quote from Richard Feynman........"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself.......and you are the easiest person to fool."I wish everyone participating in this thread to understand that this comment was not meant to be directed at anyone in particular. Nevertheless, every time we consider New Theories, that principle should never be overlooked.

a gravitational field is used to explain gravitational phenomena, and is measured in newtons per kilogram (N/kg).

the open space gravity field being minus the mass of the observing mechanism. ie: minus gravity potential energy.

Yes Ethos - you are entirely correct in your assessment... My model renders the Lorentz transformations as incorrect.

OK - to put it a different way:We have a mass. Around this mass is a gravity field that decreases in energy via the inverse square law with distance.

Therefore I reckon that a pancaked heavy ion at light speed is either a case of pilots face, or a case of a time frame dependant observation that is proportional to the difference in rate of time between the observed and the observation reference frames.

Ethos - the Lorentz transformations calculate length contraction, and as I understand it, in their inverse form they calculate SR time dilation. Current physics currently holds that both length contraction and SR time dilation are occurring.Current physics states that there are 2 forms of time dilation occurring in the universe. SR motion related time dilation and GR gravitational time dilation... and these changes in how the rate of time progresses are already measured, defined by mathematics, and experimentally confirmed.So its not a case of either length contraction, OR time dilation as you suggest. Current physics states both as occurring.

The Michael Morley experiment: This can almost be considered as the reverse scenario of the...blah, blah, etc. I said all this on the gravity wave thread... If anyone actually understands me so far, I'll continue.

And just when you thought it was safe to go back to relativity... There is actually a possibility that timey is right. I don"t have time to explain at the moment.